[projectaon] Re: Outstanding Errata Sprint (Week 6)
- From: David Davis <feline1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:39:07 +0100
I guess that's "tidier", although I suspect the gentle reader is more
likely to feel in need of a footnote when they encounter the ad-hoc bonus
at the section in question.
(If indeed they were ad hoc bonuses - it's things like this which are
virtually impossible to answer conclusively without subjecting Joe Dever
to the mind probe...)
--
http://www.feline1.co.uk
On Fri 17/06/11 11:21 AM , Simon Osborne outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx sent:
On 17/06/2011 07:53, David Davis wrote:
> PS however readers might still rightly think "oh, but the rules say +3
-
> was that a mistake?" -
> so I think each one should have a footnote "Note that that the Grand
> Weaponmastery bonus for this particular piece of archery is higher than
> the one stated in the Game Rules" ?
Personally, I prefer the current (under-discussion!) model of footnoting
Disciplines/Grand Weaponmastery to say that on occasion the bonus is
more than +3. This meshes with your notes that the +4s and +5s are
ad-hoc bonuses that Joe threw in for variety. We did something similar
respecting the Sommerswerd and its potential enhanced CS bonus on the
Plane of Darkness in Book 20--rather than footnoting each fight, we
footnoted the Game Rules.
--
Simon Osborne
Project Aon
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at
Other related posts:
